Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yeah, but I figured since my post was directly after a video from Syria and didn't reference any other videos...

Sorry, guess I should include a quote next time. Sometimes I forget how easily the subtleties of language can be lost online.

So...anyone care to wager a guess as to how often the tanks in Syria are boresighted? ;)

i didnt see the syrian video u mentioned,i thought you were talking about the M1....my bad.:c:

Link to post
Share on other sites
So...anyone care to wager a guess as to how often the tanks in Syria are boresighted? ;)

I'd suspect very low on the priority list.

"Building 50m coax, GO ON"

or

"SHELL Building, ON - FIRE!"

Doesn't really need the same fine zeroing as engaging moving vehicles at 2,500m and beyond. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although rumour has it, improvements are incoming. As they say, watch this space..

They should move their durt particules faces on the sides of the tracks rather than under.

They should also link the turret to the chassis instead of putting the turret over the central mass of the chassis...

They should stop squashing the models every time the pitch is changed... ...

That should solve that major visual atrocity. :-?

Link to post
Share on other sites
DCS, great aircraft simulator, lousy tank simulator. It was my disappointment with DCS: Combined Arms that made me look at SB...

Although rumour has it, improvements are incoming. As they say, watch this space..

The sad thing is esim approached DCS. I assume it was some sort of collaboration project.

Not sure of the details Ssnake mentioned it once in a post.

DCS were not interested I believe.

I really cant see how CA could ever match SB unless they scrap it and buy Esim. LoL

All joking aside, its taken over ten years of constant development to get SB were it is at now.

And as Ssnake has stated had it just relied on revenue from PE sales it would not have been a viable business.

Not sure how big DCS sales of CA have been. they would need to be substantial though to make it viable

Link to post
Share on other sites

Independently of the armour model, DCS first needs to solve the problem with the maps. Their height map has not enough resolution. Its really difficult to position yourself in a hull down position. And better if we not talk about the IA shooting through trees that, for the IA, doesn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The sad thing is esim approached DCS. I assume it was some sort of collaboration project.

Not sure of the details Ssnake mentioned it once in a post.

DCS were not interested I believe.

I really cant see how CA could ever match SB unless they scrap it and buy Esim. LoL

All joking aside, its taken over ten years of constant development to get SB were it is at now.

And as Ssnake has stated had it just relied on revenue from PE sales it would not have been a viable business.

Not sure how big DCS sales of CA have been. they would need to be substantial though to make it viable

i wonder if the big comps have offered esim a deal to buy them out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
End of an era - Royal Scott's Dragoons no longer a tank regiment:

Wow.

In the Netherlands (of course already bereft of tanks since 2011) they are now discussing putting the whole of 13 MechBrig 'on wheels', doing away with the CV9035NL, replacing them with Bushmasters...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Homer locked and unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...